Did you know that one of the several cases where the FBI has written their own warrant, attempted to file it, specifically against a 80 yr old librarian? The FBI arrested her and the 78 yr old assistant Librarian she gave the warrant to (illegal under the Patriot Act to divulge the existence of the warrant). They were arrested, yet such a supposedly good thing as the Patriot Act, why then were the FBI told to drop the charges by the AG? Because to allow the Patriot Act to go to legal binding court would lose the case as the GOVERNMENT KNOWS the Patriot Act is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Just because it has happened before doesn’t make it right or allowable! Unless of course you fully subscribe to might makes right, then you are truly an anarchist!

DUE PROCESS ya putz, and if you cant understand what that means, go look it up. Every single one of those nine categories is by the US Constitution and the BOR provided DUE PROCESS. That is one of the corner stones of our legal system and the NO FLY LIST does not follow that standard. Nothing you say, no matter how you spin it will change that fact. Go home and study up and come back with a better response or stay home little child, you are boring!

“Last I checked, the legal system in the US is supposed to be based on innocent until proven guilty.”

You don’t have to be convicted of a crime to be denied access to weapons. Federal law prohibits anyone who has been determined to be mentally defective or been committed to a mental health facility from purchasing a gun, which is how it should be. There’s no reason that the government can’t extend the same prohibitions to those who are deemed too dangerous to fly.

It is always a bad idea to pass a law that you wouldn’t want your worst enemy enforcing.

The no-fly list, a list:

Created in Secret
Randomly changing requirements to be added to list
The actual number is kept secret
TSA does not keep track of who is NOT a terrorist
TSA claims tens of thousands on list, but since accurate records kept, no number stated is valid
Names are not connected to a physical description, birth date or unique identifier
Includes selectee’s (those with similar names)
Authority on who add’s to list is a politician, not a real security expert
Once on list, supposed legal recourse exists, yet no evidence it has been applied for due process to be removed from the list
Ted Kennedy on list, well that does fit
8 yr old boy on list and forever will be listed as a terrorist (one of too many examples)

Yeah we see ALL the evidence and facts that no mistakes are ever, ever made by da guberment.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 regulated gun commerce, restricting mail order sales, and allowing shipments only to licensed firearm dealers. The Act also prohibited felons, those under indictment, fugitives, illegal aliens, drug users, those dishonorably discharged from the military, and those in mental institutions from owning guns. These are categories that pro gun advocates have no problem agreeing with, as long as there is consistency across the board.

Unless any of you have proof that those on the no fly list are legally listed in any of the nine categories listed in the Gun Control Act, then any who do not fit that list should in fact by law be allowed to purchase a firearm. Failure on the part of the government or their employees to do their job accurately and properly is no reason to ban anyone else’s rights

That is the problem of the no fly list, irrevocable inclusion of those are guilty or under indictment for what, nothing other than being the wrong race, outspoken against the government policies, a mistake by a government employee, can we say RACISM, naw that is too cliche.

Maybe you people have the evidence to support that those 1,196 people on the no fly list who bought a firearm then committed a crime with that firearm eh? Nope, no evidence, and if they did, does the rate of crime any different than current levels in the US, doubt it, unless you have the hard facts to prove otherwise. Problem is for gun control advocates, they have a really hard time producing anything other than lie based rhetoric.

It really is simple, have the politicians apply the guaranteed constitutional protections to the no fly list and you will get gun owners to agree, don’t include our guaranteed constitutional protections on the no-fly or any list for that matter, and any who support such an unconstitutional law can frankly stick it where the sun don’t shine. It isn’t the pro gun advocates being stubborn in this instance, it is the POLITICIANS wishing to establish an unconstitutional abuse of their power that are being stubborn, prove otherwise

“This is a no-brainer: Upsetting as it is – the thought of a suspected terrorist having access to a weapon – the U.S. is still a nation of laws and being on a ‘no-fly’ watch list is not a determining factor in gun ownership. It’s not the same as being convicted of a felony or being mentally ill, or any of the legal restrictions on owning a gun.”

It’s only a no-brainer if you assume that they aren’t talking about passing a law to bar people on the no-fly list from purchasing guns. However, you could also assume that the “should people on the no-fly watch list be allowed to purchase a gun?” question implied passing a law to that effect. I would make that same assumption for other similar questions that might be asked during a Senatorial debate, such as “should gay people be allowed to marry?” and “should police officers enforce immigration violations?”.

I read the quoted excerpt from the debate as Campbell saying, “yes, a law should bar people on the no-fly list from purchasing guns”, and DeVore an Fiorina as saying “no, that should not be a law”. But I didn’t watch the debate, so I admit that I don’t know the exact context of the question.

Why don’t we just deny people on the no fly list the right to buy/rent a car/truck? That’s NOT a constitutional right…

“Are Republicans just plain stupid, or are they so afraid of the NRA that the words “no one on the No-Fly list should be allowed to buy a gun” can’t pass their lips?”

Who says it’s not both?